rescued by the Italian Coast Guard and sent back to Libya, the European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR) condemned Italy for infringing the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular the prohibition of torture and inhuman and
degrading treatment, the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens, and the right to
be afforded an effective remedy under national law.
2
Despite the mandate coming from human rights instruments, States have preferred to adjust their migratory policies. While Australia has been outsourcing boat
people’s protection to surrounding island States under the Pacific Strategy—Nauru
and Papua New Guinea—, the European Union is following a similar pattern with
regard to Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Turkey. Accordingly, migrants intercepted in
their territorial sea, or even at high seas, are sent back to so-called satellite countries,
now considered a place of safety, without taking into account whether they are
asylum-seekers or refugees. It can be safely said that national migratory policies
have taken over and led to the blurring of the distinction between search and rescue
operations and maritime interceptions. The latter casts serious doubt in terms of
human rights protection and put maritime professionals in a very difficult situation,
as discussed in the third section of this paper.
The militarization of the border is also affecting maritime labour. In addition to
physical and mental suffering, the MV Tampa’s crew had to face the economic
consequences of the delay in the maritime venture for not following Australian
instructions. However, they were not criminalised as human smugglers or traffickers
as is nowadays happening. A remarkable example is that of the fishermen from the
Tunisian city of Zarzis. While many of them have been driven out of business
because of their rescue operations, the latest blow has come when some of them,
including the president of their fishermen’s association, Mr. Chamseddine
Bourassine, has been arrested by Italian authorities to face charges of illegal migration facilitation (Tondo 2018a). The fourth section will explore this issue.
The picture so far painted is one that makes maritime professionals face serious
conflicts of interests, namely, whether to prioritize business or to rescue people in
distress and, if the latter are rescued, whether to confront State authorities in order to
deliver them to a place of safety increasing, on the one hand, the work delay while on
the other facing the risk of being criminalised. The fifth section of this paper focuses
on OSH matters arising out of rescue operations and the shortcomings of the
international framework in facing them. The paper closes with some final remarks
as to geopolitical and regulatory actions that could help to ameliorate the situation,
including the prevention and reduction of risks at work that seriously threaten the
maritime professionals’ well-being.
2 2002 ECtHR judgment Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, No. 27765/09.
Occupational Hazards in the Light of the Maritime Migration Challenge
79
Human Rights (ECtHR) condemned Italy for infringing the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular the prohibition of torture and inhuman and
degrading treatment, the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens, and the right to
be afforded an effective remedy under national law.
2
Despite the mandate coming from human rights instruments, States have preferred to adjust their migratory policies. While Australia has been outsourcing boat
people’s protection to surrounding island States under the Pacific Strategy—Nauru
and Papua New Guinea—, the European Union is following a similar pattern with
regard to Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Turkey. Accordingly, migrants intercepted in
their territorial sea, or even at high seas, are sent back to so-called satellite countries,
now considered a place of safety, without taking into account whether they are
asylum-seekers or refugees. It can be safely said that national migratory policies
have taken over and led to the blurring of the distinction between search and rescue
operations and maritime interceptions. The latter casts serious doubt in terms of
human rights protection and put maritime professionals in a very difficult situation,
as discussed in the third section of this paper.
The militarization of the border is also affecting maritime labour. In addition to
physical and mental suffering, the MV Tampa’s crew had to face the economic
consequences of the delay in the maritime venture for not following Australian
instructions. However, they were not criminalised as human smugglers or traffickers
as is nowadays happening. A remarkable example is that of the fishermen from the
Tunisian city of Zarzis. While many of them have been driven out of business
because of their rescue operations, the latest blow has come when some of them,
including the president of their fishermen’s association, Mr. Chamseddine
Bourassine, has been arrested by Italian authorities to face charges of illegal migration facilitation (Tondo 2018a). The fourth section will explore this issue.
The picture so far painted is one that makes maritime professionals face serious
conflicts of interests, namely, whether to prioritize business or to rescue people in
distress and, if the latter are rescued, whether to confront State authorities in order to
deliver them to a place of safety increasing, on the one hand, the work delay while on
the other facing the risk of being criminalised. The fifth section of this paper focuses
on OSH matters arising out of rescue operations and the shortcomings of the
international framework in facing them. The paper closes with some final remarks
as to geopolitical and regulatory actions that could help to ameliorate the situation,
including the prevention and reduction of risks at work that seriously threaten the
maritime professionals’ well-being.
2 2002 ECtHR judgment Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, No. 27765/09.
Occupational Hazards in the Light of the Maritime Migration Challenge
79